Topics: White House, Kill List, Drones, New York Times, Robert Greenwald, Richard Engel
A tale of two presidents: The one we voted for – and Obama

This is a tale of two presidents – the one we hope we have and the one we actually have. It is also a tale of two kinds of violence – the surgical and the indiscriminate – and how the latter blurs the distinction between self-defense and something far more sinister.

This story began last year, when the White House told the New York Times that President Obama was personally overseeing a “kill list” and an ongoing drone bombing campaign against alleged terrorists, including American citizens. Back then, much of the public language was carefully crafted to reassure us that our country’s military power was not being abused.

In the Times’ report – which was carefully sculpted by Obama administration leaks – the paper characterized the bombing program as “targeted killing” with “precision weapons.” It additionally described “the care that Mr. Obama and his counterterrorism chief take in choosing targets” and claimed that as “a student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, the president believes that he should take moral responsibility” for making sure such strikes are as precise as possible.

The unstated deal being offered to America was simple: Accept a president claiming unprecedented despotic authority in exchange for that president promising to comport himself as an enlightened despot – one who seeks to limit the scope of America’s ongoing violence.

Many of the president’s partisan supporters would never have agreed to such a bargain if the executive in question were a Republican. They would have expressed outrage at news that, according to the Times, the president was “count(ing) all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants” even when those males happen to be innocent civilians. But because it was a Democratic commander in chief, many liberals tacitly agreed to the deal, reassuring themselves that this was a president who would only use violence in the most narrow ways.

That, though, brings us to the second part of this parable – the part that unfolded earlier this month when blood-soaked reality crashed the myth. In this latter chapter, we learned that the president isn’t personally overseeing “targeted” killing – he is evidently overseeing indiscriminate killing.

That was the key discovery in NBC News correspondent Richard Engel’s report finding that “the CIA did not always know who it was targeting and killing in drone strikes” approved by the president. Employing so-called “signature strikes,” the president has been authorizing the assassination of people “based on their patterns of behavior” according to Engel – that is, based simply on where a person “meets individuals, makes phone calls and sends emails.” In all, the identities of up to a quarter of those assassinated were unknown at the time that the president’s drone strikes went forward.

The deep-thinking moralist that we were told was in the White House might look at this and worry that in fighting terrorism we have resorted to engaging in terrorism. After all, deliberately killing people without regard for their identity seems like an effort to terrorize a whole population. Indeed, as this week’s stunning new video series by documentarian Robert Greenwald illustrates, such violence seems eerily similar to the kind of terrorism that our government publicly decries.

But, then, that’s this saga’s big reveal. In embracing such tactics, this parable’s main character shows that he probably isn’t the pious Aquinas-loving saint his aides present him as and that many hoped he would be. This story instead increasingly looks like a cautionary tale about a wholly unenlightened authoritarian who displays little concern about which particular lives he is choosing to end.

This, of course, is not a particularly new or unique story. It is, in fact, the oldest story in human history: the story of how power corrupts and how absolute power corrupts absolutely.

An example of what? Who said they were outside of war zones? Eric Holder didn't say it in his statement.

Well I guess if what you say is correct, and everywhere is a war zone, we can take out anyone, anywhere, as long as we think they are a threat, even an American without due process. So you folks who live in that building or even village, better hope there's not a suspect in your midst or you're done for. It seems to me this technique will by far grow more terrorists/sympathizers than it will eliminate...

We've set a new standard? No. I can't even imagine what new standard it is that you think we've set.

Do you think Pakistan would be smart to do that?

I think the only standard set was one of our own--if you are harboring threats to the US and won't put an end to it (or helps us do so), we are going to do it ourselves.

If the tables were turned and the US was harboring another country's Osama-like bad guy, and the US did nothing, I suppose I couldn't blame the other country for taking action on its own. I find this unlikely to happen.

If the tables were turned and the US was harboring another country's Osama-like bad guy, and the US did nothing, I suppose I couldn't blame the other country for taking action on its own. I find this unlikely to happen.

Yes; very unlikely...but I'm seeing it from an angle like this; just because I'm the biggest kid in class, do I think it's right to go around and punch other kids in the face...trying to punch me back would be stupid, so you'd better not.

I'm not arguing with you or Patteau on this...I just don't get the logic...not sure how well thought out this is long term.

Well I guess if what you say is correct, and everywhere is a war zone, we can take out anyone, anywhere, as long as we think they are a threat, even an American without due process. So you folks who live in that building or even village, better hope there's not a suspect in your midst or you're done for. It seems to me this technique will by far grow more terrorists/sympathizers than it will eliminate...

What technique is that? Firing weapons at the bad guys? Innocent people are always going to get caught up in it. It should be minimized as much as possible. How many innocent people were killed when we dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I wonder how many of the people droning on about drones have never thought twice about A-bombs on Japan.

Covert operations are not a new thing. I'm not sure I understand your concern.

Of course you're not concerned, as long as there was some blood and death you would probably cheer a drone striking you.

__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

Your reasons were collateral damage and too covert.
The first one isn't unique to drones.
The second is just silly considering we're talking about war with terrorists. I guess you're against the military's stealth aircraft as well.

Nope, I just tire of having the same arguments with you. When pressed you refuse to believe that anything done under the banner of the Democratic party is wrong. You revert to party shill. It's not worth discussing with you.

Nope, I just tire of having the same arguments with you. When pressed you refuse to believe that anything done under the banner of the Democratic party is wrong. You revert to party shill. It's not worth discussing with you.

Party shill--Much of the party disagrees with me on this.
I'm arguing on the same side as Patteau--you think I like that?

I think it is "wrong" to kill innocent people. Doesn't matter if by drone, rocket, or machine gun fire. It should be minimized as much as reasonably possible.

I didn't agree with much of anything W Bush did regarding the 'war on terror' but the one thing that made sense was when he finally started using drones.

What technique is that? Firing weapons at the bad guys? Innocent people are always going to get caught up in it. It should be minimized as much as possible. How many innocent people were killed when we dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I wonder how many of the people droning on about drones have never thought twice about A-bombs on Japan.

I'm asking questions about "end game"...what's really in our best interest. In WWII those techniques made nations succumb...there weren't splinter nations that propped up and started a new war all over again...but this is a totally different animal...and the newly bred terrorists whose family we blew to pieces don't need an army to do what they want and like I said, my concern is that we're creating more than we eliminating..."end game".

I'm asking questions about "end game"...what's really in our best interest. In WWII those techniques made nations succumb...there weren't splinter nations that propped up and started a new war all over again...but this is a totally different animal...and the newly bred terrorists whose family we blew to pieces don't need an army to do what they want and like I said, my concern is that we're creating more than we eliminating..."end game".

I think that is a legit concern. This thread started off about drones, and my take was that drones aren't the issue. A drone-type attack could happen with other types of weaponry. You seem to be saying we shouldn't be going after these folks in foreign countries at all.

I don't know what the "best' way to go about it is, but I don't think letting them set up a base to plot and relying on playing good defense is a great move. I also don't think invading and re-building an entire country is a great idea (Iraq). Isolated strikes against specific targets seems the way to go. Not perfect, but I'm open to other approaches.

I'm no war hawk, unlike Patteau the avowed and proud neo-con , I just don't know of a better way right now.

Well I guess if what you say is correct, and everywhere is a war zone, we can take out anyone, anywhere, as long as we think they are a threat, even an American without due process. So you folks who live in that building or even village, better hope there's not a suspect in your midst or you're done for.

Try to think this through. Don't make me spoon feed every last detail to you.

Congress is empowered to declare war by the Constitution. The President is empowered by the Constitution to command our military during time of war. Congress declared war on al Qaeda, it's associates, and it's benefactors in it's Authorization to Use Military Force. That doesn't mean the President can start raining drone strikes down on tea party members or the AP (although to be honest, the AP hasn't always behaved admirably in it's coverage of the GWoT).

Do you really think the President can get away with ordering a strike against an apartment building in Des Moines just because some junior jihadist lives in Apt. 2A based on his Constitutional war fighting perogatives? There's a huge difference between striking a suspect in a village in the midst of a hostile country with no local government control (or an unfriendly government) and striking a suspect who lives next door to the police station in Peoria, IL.

If you're an American who has decided to join the Jihad and hole up with al Qaeda members in the tribal regions of Pakistan or the lawless regions of Somolia though, you shouldn't count on your day in court.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fan4ever

It seems to me this technique will by far grow more terrorists/sympathizers than it will eliminate...

Maybe. I think there might be a cross-over point somewhere. The most important strikes, e.g. taking out al Qaeda cadre members or jihadists who are preparing an imminent attack, probably do more good than harm. Rampant, indiscriminant use of drone strikes where collateral damage is substantial and the target is of minimal importance might do more harm than good. And as I acknowledged, there's a PR factor involved beyond the reality of what's going on too. I don't see any reason to believe that we're currently doing more harm than good though. A lot of the complaints we're hearing about drone strikes are coming from people who would be complaining about any kind of military action we take.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

Like I said, not my topic, but other countries are using drones like we are? We didn't set the standard on this type of terror warfare?

Other countries are, yes.

I guess you can say we set the standard in the sense that we got there early in the game (I don't know if we're the first to use them or not), but we didn't break any embargo on their use or anything like that. If we hadn't learned how to do it first, someone else would have. If we're doing things right, we should strive to set as many of this kind of standard in military hardware as we can. Our national defense is based on the fact that we have a technology edge over our potential adversaries.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

Yes; very unlikely...but I'm seeing it from an angle like this; just because I'm the biggest kid in class, do I think it's right to go around and punch other kids in the face...trying to punch me back would be stupid, so you'd better not.

I'm not arguing with you or Patteau on this...I just don't get the logic...not sure how well thought out this is long term.

What is the difference between drone strikes and the British infantry square of the Napoleanic era in this respect?

Are you going to be upset if another country uses drone strikes on us, but you'll be perfectly fine if they march some infantry over, square up, and start shooting? Of course not. None of it is OK for the other side to do to us.

But when the other side *is* doing things to us and we decide that we're sufficiently pissed off enough to go to war with them, why should we go to war without drones? I can understand if we want to try to maintain a global agreement on reluctance to use nukes, but I don't understand why anyone would think a drone is more like a nuke than it is like a missile, a howitzer shell, or an air strike.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton